CAREER PATHS OF FEMALE CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICERS IN THE COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES April L. Moreton, B.M., M.A. Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS May 2001 APPROVED: Ronald W. Newsom, Major Professor and Program Coordinator for Higher Education James H. Thames, Minor Professor N. Barry Lumsden, Committee Member Michael Altekruse, Chair of the Department of Counseling, Development, and Higher Education M. Jean Keller, Dean of the College of Education C. Neal Tate, Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse School of Graduate Studies
149
Embed
CAREER PATHS OF FEMALE CHIEF ACADEMIC …/67531/metadc2788/m2/1/high... · master’s degrees or between her master’s or doctoral degrees. ... Of Motivation and Opportunity ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CAREER PATHS OF FEMALE CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICERS
IN THE COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
April L. Moreton, B.M., M.A.
Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
May 2001
APPROVED:
Ronald W. Newsom, Major Professor and ProgramCoordinator for Higher Education
James H. Thames, Minor ProfessorN. Barry Lumsden, Committee MemberMichael Altekruse, Chair of the Department of Counseling,
Development, and Higher EducationM. Jean Keller, Dean of the College of EducationC. Neal Tate, Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse School of
Graduate Studies
Moreton, April L., Career Paths of Female Chief Academic Officers in the
Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Doctor of Philosophy (Higher
Education), May, 2001, 140 pp., 36 tables, references, 71 titles.
This study examined the career paths of women administrators serving as chief
academic officers in Christian colleges and universities which belong to the Council for
Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). The CCCU is a professional association of
evangelical Christian institutions dedicated to integrating faith and learning. The
exploration included each administrator’s demographic information; her early,
adolescent, college, and graduate school experiences; early vocational experiences; the
effect of marriage and motherhood on her career; critical factors she identified as
important in achieving her current position; and the importance of spiritual convictions or
Christian faith in career decision making. Sixteen of the eighteen identified women
holding the rank of chief academic officer agreed to participate in the study.
The typical woman administrator was 50, married, and the mother of one or more
children. She most likely had received her education in the humanities, with the terminal
degree of choice being a Ph.D. She had served at her current institution for more than
five years, but in her current administrative position for less than five. As an adolescent
she excelled in the humanities, less so in math and science, and was involved in many
extracurricular activities, including music endeavors, leadership, and her local church.
She had received the most encouragement from her mother, although both parents
expected her to do her best in school. For post secondary education, she had benefited
from a mentor, had excelled easily, and had taken no time off between her bachelor’s and
master’s degrees or between her master’s or doctoral degrees. Although she had aspired
to teach and received most of her early vocational experience in the professoriate, she had
not aspired to be an administrator. As an adult, she had married in her 20’s and had
children before the age of 30. She had an unusually supportive spouse and believed her
marriage to be a key factor in her career success. Her family and professional roles were
potentially conflicted and required her to “juggle” her responsibilities. She believed the
influence of her mentors, faith influences, and chairing an academic department were
critical experiences that had led to her position in administration. Regarding her spiritual
convictions and disciplines, she adamantly believed both affect her daily work and
personal life.
CCCU women administrators are deeply committed to their Christian higher
education callings, highly educated, persistent, spiritually minded, and devoted to their
families.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Without a doubt, this project would not have reached fruition without the sincere
involvement of many people. To my committee members, and especially Dr. Ron
Newsom, I credit patience, constructive criticism, and careful attention to details. Thank
you for walking me through this project. Jill Jackson, Kerrie Maddox, and Sandee Smith
spent many hours either editing or transcribing. Thank you, ladies, for supporting me
during such a critical phase.
To the sixteen women administrators who so graciously gave me their time,
insight, honesty, and humor – I would not have had a study without you. Not only did
you contribute to my education, you challenged me in the process. If someday I achieve
even a portion of your wisdom, I will consider myself blessed.
For the countless prayers offered on my behalf by my immediate family and
friends at Dallas Bible Church and Dallas Baptist University, I credit the sustenance to
dream, plan, and fulfill such a project.
The hero in this study is undoubtedly my dear husband. Not only did you
encourage me to succeed, but you made it possible for me to do so. I will not forget the
weekends and evenings you spent alone while I researched, nor the clean home and hot
meals that awaited me. You truly exemplify a Christ-like spirit that continues to bless me
in every way. I love you, Sam.
Most of all, praise be to God the Father for all He has done on my behalf.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………ii
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………..vi
Chapter
I.INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………1Problem StatementPurposes of the StudyResearch QuestionsDefinitions of TermsDelimitationsAssumptionsSignificance of the Study
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE…………………………….8Traditional Career PathsMale and Female Career Paths: A Comparison“Women’s Work”The Role of Mentors and NetworksPromotionObstacles to Advancement
Early SocializationFemininityEducationMarriage and ChildbearingTokenism and Authority IssuesTheological Controversy in Evangelical Christian Higher
EducationKeys to Advancement
EducationWork EthicMobilityPolitical AstutenessExperience and Characteristics
Landmark StudiesThe Life Cycles and Career Stages ofSenior Level Administrative Women inHigher Education
FindingsCareer Paths of Women AdministratorsIn Higher Education Institutions: PerceptionsOf Motivation and Opportunity
Findings
iv
Career Paths in Higher Education AdministrationFindings
Conclusion
III. RESEARCH DESIGN……………………………………………….50PopulationInterview Guideline
Field TestingDomainsDemographicsFamily InfluenceSocial Influences – High School, College,
Graduate SchoolAdult Family InfluencesCritical IncidencesFaith Influences
Procedure for Collecting DataInitial ContactScheduling InterviewingFollow Up
Data AnalysisReporting the Data
IV. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS…………………………………..58IntroductionDemographicsFamily InfluencesSocial Influences – High SchoolSocial Influences – College and Graduate SchoolVocational InfluencesAdult Family InfluencesCritical IncidencesRole of Faith
V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, ANDRECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………….115IntroductionSummaryDiscussion of the FindingsConclusionsRecommendations
APPENDICES………………………………………………………….…127A. CCCU Member InstitutionsB. Invitation Letter
v
C. Interview Guideline
REFERENCE LIST………………………………………………………135
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Characteristics of Women Administrators……………………………………38
2. Years at Current Institution…………………………………………………...60
3. Years in Current Position………………………………………………………60
4. Age…………………………………………………………………………….61
5. Undergraduate Degree………………………………………………………...61
6. Master’s Degree………………………………………………………………62
7. Terminal Degree………………………………………………………………62
8. Major Fields of Study………………………………………………………...63
9. Marital Status of Women Administrators…………………………………….64
10. Husband’s Education…………………………………………………………65
11. Husband’s Vocation…………………………………………………….……65
12. Adjectives Used to Describe Personality……………………………………..66
1984) and published literature reviews (Scanlon, 1997; Sederberg & Mueller, 1992;
Etaugh, 1984) abound, but relatively little original research is recent. In addition to lack
of interest, another factor contributing to the lack of recent research on women is the fact
that, because men continue to occupy top administrative positions, most research
focusing on career paths uses single sex samples (Lumsden, et.al., 2000; Hawk, 1995;
Sederberg & Mueller, 1992).
12
Of even further concern is the lack of research which analyzes the career paths of
women administrators in evangelical, conservative, Christian institutions. Much has been
written about women in higher education in general and women in ministry, but relatively
little about women in Christian higher education. Thorough electronic searches were
conducted using ERIC (1966-2000), Sociofile (1963-2000), Dissertation Abstracts (1975-
1999), and Psychlit (1983-2000) databases. Descriptors included the following: women,
women administrators, career development, career path, mobility, chief academic officer,
vice president for academic affairs, Christian institutions, religious institutions, Christian
higher education, Christian women, and others.
A search of the literature revealed studies which have focused on broad career
paths, “women’s work,” mentoring and networking, promotion, obstacles to
advancement, necessary preparation, and examples of how women have succeeded. This
review focused on these areas and examined three studies that focused specifically on
career paths of women administrators. Though thorough, this search revealed a gap in the
literature regarding career paths of women in Christian higher education, women chief
academic officers, and the lack of research covering the two topics concurrently.
Traditional Career Paths
Several studies (Twombly, 1986; Cullivan, 1990; Sederberg & Mueller, 1992)
have identified the traditional path to administrative careers in higher education.
Twombly (1986) identified the professoriate as the most universal entry point to top-level
administrative posts. In her study of 898 administrators, Twombly discovered that the
chief business officer and chief student affairs positions were ceiling positions.
13
Individuals serving in academic positions such as department chairs, academic deans, and
vice presidents usually have had prior faculty experience (Twombly, 1986).
In one of the earliest studies (Moore, 1983), an “orderly” career path consisted of
faculty member, department chair, dean, provost, and president. As a result, if women did
not progress through the academic ranks, it was highly unlikely they would be considered
for administrative positions. Modeling this study, Sederberg and Mueller (1992)
discovered that the ages of women in administration affected their career paths. Women
55 and older often followed Moore’s orderly career path. Women between 40 and 55
focused on professional and personal aspects of their lives equally, and women between
the ages of 30 and 40 delayed marriage and family until they established their careers.
In their sample of 394 male and female administrators, Warner and DeFleur
(1993) identified two tracks for advancement in higher education. Individuals who
attained upper-level academic administrative positions began their careers in academic
fields. Those who began in non-academic fields attained a vice presidency level in non-
academic divisions, with little crossover between academic and non-academic
administration. The researchers also discovered that administrators who began their
careers in academic fields also obtained top-level positions. Roughly 39% of the
academic deans in Warner’s and DeFleur’s sample had academic backgrounds as
opposed to 7% of the deans with non-academic backgrounds.
Obstacles to the “orderly” career path exist for women. One important factor is
that women who begin in the professoriate must make crucial choices regarding their
personal and professional lives (Hersi, 1993; Sederberg & Mueller, 1992; Woo, 1985).
The critical years for obtaining tenure through research, publication, and service to the
14
institution often coincides with childbearing years and forces women to either choose
between equally important goals or sacrifice one at the expense of another (Dublon,
1983).
Male and Female Career Paths: A Comparison
In an effort to generalize to the population, Slimmer (1984) sampled 232
administrators from 118 public and 67 private institutions in order to determine career
path characteristics for female administrative aspirants. Using a self-made survey
(Women in Higher Education: Characteristics and Employment Strategies), correlation,
multiple regression, and factor analysis, the researcher discovered that 38.5% of the
respondents began their higher education careers immediately following graduation from
college. Differing from their male counterpart’s continuous career paths, 45.2% of the
respondents noted a personal sabbatical from their careers in order to marry, raise
children, or change locations for their husband’s career.
However, Louise H. Allen (1984), a Vice President for Academic Affairs in the
1980’s, identified from personal experience that male and female career paths as CAO
were very similar. She states:
Sex apart, the female vice president for academic affairs hasmany characteristics in common with her male counterpart.Her career path has been very similar, and the headaches andrewards of her job are quite parallel. Her salary has probablybeen equalized by now with those of men in similar institutionsand positions, and she may very well be, as I am, thehighest-paid vice president on her campus. She may actuallybe more in demand than her male counterparts for off-campusboard membership and other activities, since she is rare. (Allen,1984, p. 10)
15
She supports Moore’s (1983) “orderly” path in that one aspiring to a similar position
must seek a terminal degree, gain experience teaching undergraduate and graduate
students, write for publication, and accept progressive administrative responsibility.
Barrax (1985) surveyed thirty administrators, equally split between male and
female. Her intention was to discover the career paths of both once they achieved similar
positions. Using in-depth interviews as the primary form of data collection for her study,
Barrax also reviewed each participant’s vita for consistency. The researcher discovered
that the highest percent (33%) received their first degree in fields traditionally saturated
by women (e.g., nursing). However, a shift was noted in that terminal degrees were often
obtained in “less sex-typed fields such as higher education administration” (p. 28). Most
of the men and women had been in their careers for less than five years, a finding also
supported by Murrell & Donohue (1982).
Women (83%) more than men (17%) reported risk taking in their careers, whereas
an equal number of men and women reported that possessing the right credentials and
serving in organizations proved important. Men and women in Barrax’s 1985 study
reported that “volunteering and accepting assignments at all university levels” (p. 30)
were influential in their career mobility.
The most important difference between male and female career paths was that
men maintained continuous employment, whereas women had one or more episodes of
unemployment and less loyalty to their work due to family responsibilities (Warner &
DeFleur, 1993; Johnsrud, 1991; Bird, 1984).
16
“Women’s Work”
If one accepts Gilligan’s supposition of “a different voice” and women’s
tendency to gravitate to nurturing roles, it is not surprising that the positions women
assume in higher education reflect this nurturing orientation. These positions have been
coined “women’s work” and often rely heavily on nurturing interpersonal relationships.
To some extent, faculty positions fall into this category; teaching has traditionally been a
woman’s field, and administration (decision-making) a man’s (Cullivan, 1990; Jones,
1987). Women are expected to be able to teach intuitively, which reflects the natural
aspects of mothering (Gold, 1996). Numerous studies report that women are clustered in
low-ranking, support-type positions in higher education. Adrian Tinsley (1985) states:
The problem with [these] numbers is that – as we knowand as the research confirms – higher education has apyramidal structure and women are clustered at the bottomof the pyramid. Women are far more likely to be assistants to,assistants, or associates than they are to be directors, deans, vicepresidents, provosts, or presidents. Women are more likely to bestaff line than line. In college and university administration, thethree positions most held by women and by minorities are registrar,librarian, and director of financial aid. Research also tells us thatmost women administrators do “women’s work” in higher educationadministration. Women hold the positions in continuing educationprograms that focus on women or reentry women. Women run theprograms that deal with women or minorities as a specialconstituency, such as women’s studies programs, women’s resourcecenters, developmental skills centers, and special advising centers.Women serve as deans of professional programs in which students areprimarily women, such as nursing, home economics, and social workprograms. They do not serve as deans of business, engineering, ortechnology. Women, in short, are “clustered” or “tracked” within thestructure of employment in our profession. (Tinsley, 1985, p. 6)
To this list, Wilson (1990) adds that women are usually involved with remedial
teaching, advising, and affirmative action, and Etaugh (1984) adds English, foreign
languages, home economics, fine arts, and library science as typical women’s disciplines.
17
As a result of this “clustering” in female fields and lower-level administrative levels,
women are underrepresented in academic administration (Cullivan, 1990). Harvey and
Stiff (1985) state that an orderly career path that culminates in academic administration is
preceded by tenure and academic promotion. However, women in staff-line positions
face uncertain career advancement because no such advancement structure exists for
them. Furthermore, women are more likely to serve in student affairs divisions such as
the bookstore, health services, student counseling, information office, and public relations
(Etaugh, 1984). In some fields, women are not only underrepresented but also overtly
discriminated against. Featherman (1993) states, “where financial areas are concerned,
women are still seen as less knowledgeable than men” (p. 172). This representation of
“women’s work” by women is not necessarily unfortunate. If Gilligan’s supposition is
true, women may be more satisfied in careers that support their need for relationships and
connectedness (Stonewater, 1987).
The Role of Mentors and Networking
The career path of an aspiring administrator often includes a significant “other” in
the field – one who serves as a liason, friend, confidant, motivator, and critic. The
literature refers to this significant “other” as a mentor. Entire studies have focused on the
role of mentoring, both positive and negative aspects. Wright & Wright (1987) defined a
mentor as a “veteran professional who takes an active interest in the career development
of a younger professional” (p. 204). Scanlon (1997) further defines the mentor as one
who holds a powerful position and offers guidance through setting career goals for the
protégé. Women administrator aspirants may also benefit from network mentoring. In
18
one arrangement, the mentoring relationship includes several different participants and is
constantly changing. Information and support are shared between a variety of individuals,
thus consisting of “flexible and mutually interdependent patterns” between individuals
(Swoboda & Millar, 1986, p.11).
Regardless of the type of mentoring a female administrator experiences, most
report that mentoring has played a crucial role in her advancement in higher education
encouragement gestures, and averting the eyes. Unfortunately, women experience a lack
of formal authority as a result of these differences (North, 1991). Some of these
characteristics support the reason women choose certain roles in higher education.
Because they are typically the more nurturing and supportive of the two sexes, they
gravitate toward positions in higher education that enable them to use these
characteristics to their benefit.
The author noted that women at a recent professional gathering were not
acknowledged when they wished to speak, were interrupted, had their comments and
suggestions ignored and later credited to a male, and were not assigned tasks when work
was distributed. As a result, many women attempted to adopt the leadership and decision-
making skills they observed in male counterparts. For example, Schmitt (1994), in an
attempt to discern this tendency, noted that most of the early literature focusing on
women’s advancement actually purported that women adhere to the male model of
25
leadership. In other words, women must become more “masculine” in order to succeed in
a male world.
Even acknowledging differences in abilities based on gender is disturbing to
higher education administrator Joan DeGuire North. She commented on the fact that
like some other women in visible, leadership positions, I did not wantothers to think of me as a woman or WOMAN administrator, so I triedto keep gender out of my frames of reference. Only when faced withoverwhelming evidence of being treated differently than [sic] the men whosurrounded me did I deal, briefly, with the notion that I was different ingender-related ways from my male colleagues. (North, 1991, p. 44)
Some researchers (Hersi, 1993; Sandler, 1987) believe women speak less in
meetings, conferences, etc., with male colleagues as a result of discrimination. North
(1991) believes this might be the result of a woman’s ability to listen thoroughly. She
does acknowledge that when women speak they are often not communicating with a
group that has the ability to listen as intently as women. Unfortunately, the organizational
scheme of higher education often values the “talker” more than the “listener,” thus
placing women at a disadvantage. North, reflecting on this issue in her career, often
debates between the need to be heard and the frustration that, if she speaks up, she will
likely be labeled as domineering. In conclusion, North believes the issue raised by
femininity often discourages women from administration. She fears that women will
choose different careers simply because it will be less of a hassle. And she believes “that
we could be witnessing a powerful paradigm shift toward identifying the special and
unique contributions women can bring to organizations and away from assuming that
male and female administrators operate pretty much the same way – the male way” (p.
52).
26
Though femininity is often viewed as detrimental to one’s career and authority,
Allen (1984) boldly states that women should use their femininity when appropriate – as
a hostess – for instance. Two studies focused on evaluating types of personalities as they
relate to gender. Stonewater (1987) surveyed 250 students at a large university in the
Midwest in an attempt to distinguish gender differences as they related to career
development. She used the Holland Self-Directed Search Instrument and the Johnson,
Coscarelli, and Johnson Decision-Making Inventory. The results of her analysis revealed
that gender did affect career development (SDS type revealed a p < .001). Women more
often than not tested as Social and Conventional types, and men tested as Realistic and
Investigative. Stonewater further analyzed her data by comparing gender with style. She
discovered that women processed information externally and men processed information
internally. Based on her results, she accepted Gilligan’s (1983) supposition that women
gravitate to careers in which they can utilize relationships and caring for others.
A second study conducted by Street and Kimmel (1999) analyzed sex-role
stereotypes held by 321 university administrators in the southeast. They administered the
Street and Meek Sex-Role Trait Inventory (SRT) and a demographic questionnaire. Of
their sample, 51% were men, 49% women, and the majority (34%) was between the ages
of 41 and 50. In addition, 81% were Caucasian. The universities were public institutions
with no mention of religious ties. From the factor analysis results, Street and Kimmel
concluded that both genders believe most men and women are sex-typed. Women viewed
their ideal woman, ideal man, and themselves as androgynous, but men viewed their ideal
man and themselves as more masculine. Because the SRT discriminates between
different traits, the researchers were able to pinpoint the most prominent trait of each
27
gender. The traits of Compassion and Deference were labeled as mostly feminine, while
the traits of Intellect, Power, and Sexuality were labeled as masculine.
The results of the study revealed that both men and women view intellect as the
most ideal trait to possess as an administrator. Men and women who participated in the
study stated that they view the opposite gender by traditional norms (women high on the
compassion trait and men high on the sexuality trait). When analyzing themselves, the
women described themselves as high in the traits of Compassion and Intellect. Men
viewed themselves as high in the trait of Intellect. The authors believe their study reveals
that, as a whole, administrators support androgynous gender roles, but that among
members of the study, sex-role stereotypes remain strong. Furthermore, the fact that sex-
role stereotypes remain active implys that policy, hiring practices, and promotion may
still affect the advancement of women.
Education.
In contemporary society, education has been considered the key to the American
dream. For women administrators, education plays an important role in their career
paths. The majority of women holding a vice president or presidential title have an earned
doctorate (Ironside, 1983; Murrell, 1982). The fields in which that doctorate is obtained
differ. Barrax (1985), in her comparative study of 15 male and 15 female administrators
from three universities, found a shift from the field of the first degree obtained to the last
degree obtained. The majority of the women (33%) received their first degree in the
social, political, or behavioral sciences. For their terminal degrees, less sex-typed fields
such as higher education administration were preferred by these women.
28
For the vice president of academic affairs, the type of education received can be
an obstacle. For instance, this review has already established that the typical route to the
chief academic officer position is through the professoriate (Cullivan, 1990; Twombly,
1986). Therefore, anyone aspiring to the CAO position should acquire a terminal degree,
preferably the Ph.D., in a discipline in which they can move through the professorial
ranks. Unfortunately, advanced education for women is still viewed as a luxury –
something that is unnecessary for women whose husbands income is the main source of
support (Hersi, 1993).
Marriage and Childbearing.
Many factors serve as obstacles in the career paths of women administrators: lack
of education or the right type of degree, sex-role stereotype, and discrimination, to name
a few. However, the personal lives of women – marriage and family – may serve as the
greatest obstacle to top-level administrative positions. Sederberg (1992) boldly
hypothesized that being married may serve as a barrier for women administrators. There
are a number of reasons for this. First, cultural norms include the expectation that women
will manage the home and family, often making it difficult to add a highly demanding
career. Second, many women find it difficult to choose between a career and family. If
they attempt to have both simultaneously, they often struggle to function at the level that
both roles demand (Hawk, 1995; Bird, 1984; Fitzgerald, 1980). Third, many women in
higher education admit that a supportive spouse plays a key role in their achievement
(Slimmer, 1984). Likewise, the opposite is true. Indeed, many women feel that they
would be more successful if they had a “wife” to support them!
29
In spite of the obvious tension that arises from attempting to manage a marriage,
children, and an administrative career, most women administrators are married (Slimmer,
1984), yet younger women tend to delay marriage until their careers are established
(Sederberg, 1992). In a study of 600 male and female administrators Bird (1984)
discovered that the surveyed women, on average, married younger, had fewer children
(than the men in her sample), and earned less in their careers. Women report more often
than men that professional responsibilities are more demanding of their time, that they
tend to delegate in order to manage career and family, and that they still have the major
responsibility for the family. Bird concludes by saying that “having a career, being
married, and raising children are extremely demanding roles; women administrators who
choose to combine these roles are survivors in a system that does not easily forgive
‘inadequate’ performance in any of these realms” (p. 27).
Hersi (1993) supports this claim by adding that female administrators leave the
office to go to work at home: run the household, raise the children, and take care of
relatives. Unfortunately, she adds, women who are able to rise to the occasion are often
viewed as “overly aggressive, strangely masculine, or a hard-core feminist.” Those
women who are not able to perform all of the tasks heaped on them are often criticized
for being ‘weak,’ overly consumed with personal concerns to achieve professional
mobility and “caught between commitment to family and the workplace” (p. 30). Women
often fail to advance, likewise, because their family responsibilities are viewed as a
liability by decision-making groups (Johnsrud, 1991; Phillips & Johnston, 1985).
As to childbearing and rearing, many women are choosing to delay or omit this
life stage. Schneider’s article in the July 21, 2000, issue of The Chronicle reported a
30
University of Oregon lawsuit involving an assistant professor’s claim that she was denied
tenure because she took maternity leave. With all professional responsibilities met
(publications, merit-pay increases, and contract renewal), the assistant professor
identified her maternity leave as the only probable cause of her tenure denial. The lawsuit
was settled by the university agreeing to pay the professor $495,000. Clearly, bias
against women and their family responsibilities continues.
In 1985, Lillian Woo studied the leadership issues facing 450 women at the
Center for Women in Educational Leadership at the University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill. She noted, first of all, that women continue to be underrepresented in leadership
positions in education. As a result, Woo invited the women in her sample who were
interested in advancing in education to take part in exploratory sessions in order to assess
the needs and issues these women faced. One participant revealed that marriage was
possibly the greatest obstacle women face. Many struggle with the desire to have families
and careers. Participants grieve over the guilt others impose on them based on their
career and family choices, and they find it difficult to impress on outsiders their desire for
a career and a family. Woo discovered that many of her participants admitted that
managing their careers while their children are young is extremely difficult; surprisingly,
many believed their dual roles of mother and administrator have not affected their career
progress.
The issue of childbearing and academic career was the focus of a study by
Marshall and Jones (1990). The researchers utilized a simple random sample of 500
members of the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors
(NAWDAC). In the survey, respondents were asked to identify the childbearing sequence
31
they had employed: 1) had first child, began training, began career; 2) began training, had
first child, began career; 3) began training, began career, had first child; or 4) began
training, began career, had no children.
The researchers found no effect for institutional size on childbearing sequence,
but did find significant effects for the participants’ age and career length. Half of the
respondents reported having children (N=173). Women who employed the third
childbearing sequence (training to career to childbearing) reported the highest salary
gains compared to the other three sequences. Likewise, the analysis revealed that women
who began their training after their first child was born were less likely to achieve senior
administrative status.
Marshall and Jones used qualitative measures to determine the perceived impact
of childbearing on their respondents careers. Sixty-three percent believed childbearing
had negatively impacted their career. Thirty percent believed childbearing had a positive
effect, and 7% believed childbearing had no direct effect on their careers. Of those who
perceived negative impacts, “37% cited problems with professional advancement, 26%
cited delayed entry into careers, 23% cited limited career options, and 10% cited limited
mobility as an obstacle” (p. 535). Overall, the researchers determined that childbearing
sequences had no significant effect on women’s career development, although a weak
correlation existed for women advancing to senior level positions if they had children
prior to their training. In conclusion, Marshall and Jones report that
the quantitative data indicate that these women can begin their familieswhen they wish to do so, without permanently falling behind other womenadministrators. In addition, the qualitative analysis indicates that manywomen administrators believe the satisfaction of having children outweighsany career problems. The qualitative analysis, however, also indicates thatmany women administrators with children pay a high personal price in
32
maintaining their careers. Childbearing responsibilities can limit optionsand force choices that lead to regret, whichever option is chosen. (Marshalland Jones, 1990, p. 536)
The studies cited above regarding childbearing sequence, responsibilities, and
priorities did not delineate whether religious convictions affected the decisions women
made regarding this area of their lives. Most of the opinions, struggles, and decision-
making options of these women centered on the cultural norms generally expected and
accepted by men and women. Including an examination of how one’s faith affects this
decision-making process is necessary. Regardless of the value system from which the
women above operate, it is clear that each pays a high personal cost to achieve her career
First Position in Higher Education Administration.
Having entered the field of higher education, what was each administrator’s first
position in administration? This question sheds light as to whether an obvious career
path exists for female administrators in academic positions within Christian colleges and
universities. Three categories were identified based on the administrators’ responses:
department chair, Vice President for Academic Affairs, and other. The department chair
category includes, traditionally, only those individuals who had served as a full-time
faculty member. Fifty percent of the administrators had administrative positions other
than department chair. See Table 32 below.
98
Table 32
First Position in Higher Education Administration (N=16)
First Position N %
Department Chair 7 44Vice President for Academic Affairs 1 6Chair of the Self-study for InstitutionalAccreditation Chair 1 6Coordinator of Service Learning 1 6Dean of the School of Nursing 1 6Assistant to the Provost 1 6Program Director 1 6Director of Teacher Education 1 6Director of Special Programs 1 6Director of the Michigan Higher EducationInstitute 1 6
Total 16 100
Current Position.
In this section of Vocational Influences, each administrator was asked to describe
how they achieved their current position. Did she pursue it? Appointed? At the time of
the interview, six administrators held the title of Vice President for Academic Affairs.
One each held the following roles: Vice President and Dean of Academics, Vice
President for Undergraduate Affairs and Academic Dean, Vice President and Dean of the
Faculty, Academic Vice President and Dean. One administrator held the title Vice
Provost for Curriculum and Faculty Development, another held the title Undergraduate
Academic Dean, one served as Interim Provost, and two were Provosts.
Similar to the aforementioned data results of aspiring to administration, many
(N=7) of the women believe they “fell into” their positions. One administrator described
achieving her current position as being at “the right place at the right time doing God’s
99
work.” Another administrator does not view herself as an administrator: “I fell into [my
position] kicking and screaming really…to be very honest, I still don’t think of myself as
an administrator.”
The phraseology of this question in the interview guide often elicited responses
describing the administrator’s job performance that led to her current position. At least
three mentioned performing well in prior positions, attention to detail, and working well
with others. The heart of the question was to determine whether each administrator was
appointed to their current position or whether they pursued it. After further clarification,
69% (N=11) reported that they were appointed or invited to their current position by the
President of their institution. The remaining five administrators pursued their position
through application.
Adult Family Influences
Because many women face equally satisfying life role options, this section
provided much insight as to how they manage their personal life role with their
professional life role. If applicable, at what age did they marry and have children? How
has marriage and motherhood affected their professional responsibilities? Have their
husbands been successful in their professional endeavors? How have each managed their
dual roles and any subsequent conflict?
Age of Marriage.
Of the sixteen administrators, 88% (N=14) had been married by the time of the
interview. Their ages at the time of marriage fell into four categories: less than 20 years
of age, 21-30 years of age, 31-40 years of age, and 41-50 years of age. See Table 33
below.
100
Table 33
Age at Time of Marriage (N=13)
Age of Marriage N %
Less than 20 Years 1 721-30 Years 10 7231-40 Years 2 1441-50 Years 1 7________________________________________________________________________
Total 14 100
Age at Time of Childbearing.
This section of Adult Family Influences reports the age at which each
administrator gave birth to or adopted children. Of the sixteen administrators, thirteen
have children. Of the thirteen with children, two adopted children and one has
stepchildren. The age range of 20-30 is the most representative (N=7) of when
administrators had children. See Table 34 below.
Table 34
Age at Time of Childbearing or Adoption (N=12)
Age N %
20-30 Years of Age 7 6431-40 Years of Age 5 36
Total 12 100
101
Effects of Marriage.
If the administrator was or had been married, how had her marriage affected her
professional career? Had marriage provided a supportive avenue for her career to
flourish or had it been a struggle? Of the fourteen administrators who fit in this category,
71% (N=10) described marriage affecting their careers positively. Seven of these ten
women described their marriage or husbands as supportive.
One administrator described her marriage as a supportive part of her career. She
credits her accomplishments to her husband’s encouragement to finish her degree, attend
graduate school, and choose where she wanted to work. Another administrator described
her husband as her best ally and supporter. “He is as quiet and reserved as I am noisy and
outgoing. He is not one who would ever want or receive the spotlight. He’s been
enormously supportive. I don’t think I could have been a good mom and full-
time…whatever I’m doing…if we hadn’t had a magnificently cooperative relationship.”
Several administrators (N=3) shared that their spouses performed nontraditional
tasks so that they could pursue their vocation. For instance, one stated: “I can’t imagine
having gone this far without my husband’s support emotionally, physically, and
financially. He’s the one at home right now with the baby, to give you an example.”
Another administrator shared that it was her husband’s encouragement that led her to
accept a Dean’s position. “He really wanted it for me. And he agreed to attend all the
things with me he had to attend and stay home when I had to go to meetings.” One
spouse of an administrator agreed to work part-time when his wife accepted her
leadership position in higher education. She recalls: “My husband is a real partner and a
friend, and I wouldn’t be who I am without him. He’s helped me grow personally and to
102
set high goals…and I know I’m really privileged to have a spouse that’s willing to work
half-time for example. I wouldn’t be who I am without him.”
Another administrator shared that her spouse was never threatened by her
leadership opportunities. She described him as “having a pure heart and praying for [her]
each step of the way.” One administrator stated that her spouse delighted in her ministry
and explained that her husband’s support freed her to be what God wanted her to be.
Although the majority of the administrators’ marriages were described as
supportive, three described their marriages as less than beneficial for their careers. It was
generally not because of an unsupportive spouse, but because of the tension produced
between two equally satisfying roles (career and marriage) or the limitations marriage
placed on professional progress. For instance, one administrator described it as hard, full
of pressure, and a “tearing between two things that [I] could commit myself to.”
Another admitted that her marriage placed mobility limitations on her career.
“Well, it’s [marriage] certainly limited where I can work…I did spend a year as a fellow
with the U.S. Government which was an honorary appointment. Went back and forth
between Washington D.C. and Washington state. I did post-docs and so on. My husband
was extremely supportive of my doing that because of the limited options in the
geographical area where we were placed.” Another expressed similar mobility
sentiments: “Had I not gotten married, I probably…who knows? I could have gone a
totally different direction. I had an offer to teach at a school in Columbia that I might
have taken. I certainly would not have gone to Colorado for my doctoral work had I not
been married.” One administrator had difficulty determining if marriage had affected her
103
career negatively or positively. She did admit that her marriage has forced her to be more
organized and to balance things in her life.
Effects of Motherhood.
In this section of the interview, each administrator was asked how motherhood
had affected their careers. The majority (N=7) with children describe motherhood as
positively affecting their personal career. One described motherhood as somewhat
negative and three described it as having no major influence.
Of those that described motherhood as positively affecting their career, many
mentioned that having children helped them balance their personal and private lives.
They were unable to work the same amount of hours because they held their families in
high esteem, often before their careers, and made choices that reflected these convictions.
One administrator specifically waited until her children were in college before she
accepted a high-demanding administrative career. Another attended graduate school
part-time while her children were young because “motherhood was very important to
[her].”
Three described specifically how motherhood had helped their careers. One
administrator believes she can more fully equip faculty with families because she has
juggled similar responsibilities. Another described how motherhood had affected her
service to parents on campus: “Being a mother helps me to know the sorrows and the
disappointments and the pain and the joys people all around me experience, too. And
particularly here in higher education, it really enables me to connect with parents. I know
how they’re feeling when they send their kids to college.”
104
The only administrator who noted a negative aspect of motherhood on her career
stated that it produces a tension between her roles. She explains: “There’s no doubt that
motherhood is the number one, I wouldn’t say stressor, but it’s the leading factor in my
professional life in terms of my schedule. Everything I do is more affected by
motherhood than anything. So, it’s a strong influencer.”
Three admitted that motherhood has had virtually little effect on their careers. For
one administrator, parenthood affects both the husband and wife in similar ways. She
and her spouse viewed raising children as a joint effort and, because her husband was in
full-time ministry, he often had more flexibility to meet their children’s needs. The
second administrator stated that she had reached a place in her career that allowed greater
flexibility by the time she had children. The last administrator in this category stated that
she merely worked part-time as an instructor while her children were young so that she
could manage her family and her career.
Husband’s Vocational Success.
Because each of the women in this study had reached an upper level of leadership
and vocational success as demonstrated by their positions, those who were married were
asked about their husband’s vocational success. Had their husbands also been
successful? Or, had they deferred to their wives’ vocational interests? Of the thirteen
currently married administrators, 69% (N=11) responded that their husbands had been
successful. The remaining two administrators mentioned that their husbands had
struggled or deferred to her career. One administrator blamed her mobility and
“uprooting” her husband as a cause for his struggle. The other administrator confided
that her husband had completely reshaped his career to suit her progress.
105
Of the nine who felt their husbands had been successful in their careers, one
mentioned that her husband had made sacrifices and another mentioned that her husband
had no desire to be “at the top of the pack,” which allowed her the freedom to pursue her
career more fully.
Management of Personal and Professional Roles.
This section of the interview probed how each married administrator managed her
family life. How did she juggle her professional responsibilities with the demands of her
family? What roles did her husband fulfill in the family? Did she change her work
habits when children arrived?
Of the thirteen married administrators, five specifically mentioned the word
“juggling” when asked how they managed career and family. Another theme that
emerged in their responses involved husbands assuming flexible, nontraditional roles.
For instance, one administrator shared that she mowed the lawn as much as her husband,
and he vacuumed the house as much as she did. Another stated that she and her husband
considered themselves “equal partners from day one.” Both were able to arrange their
work schedule so that they never relied on day care for their children. She admitted that
with each phase of their lives, their lifestyle had to be re-structured to meet the changing
demands. One administrator specifically stated that her marriage did not demand that
either partner be role-specific: “We have changed jobs in the house and outside the house
from time to time…right now, my husband is the lead cook in our family. He thinks
about what we’re going to eat and fixes it. I come along and clean up and act as the
chef’s helper.” About flexible roles, another administrator stated that she and her
husband share a partnership, each performs according to his or her gifting. She shares:
106
“He[does] more of the laundry and the big major cleaning. I still do the bathrooms. But
we made a deliberate decision as a couple that when I completed my doctorate that I
would go back to work and be the quote-unquote breadwinner of the family. He would
be the one that was available for the boys in the morning and the afternoons, for field
trips, and be involved in PTA and PTO.”
Because one administrator married young, she and her husband were able to
carefully plan for their careers and family. Similar to what the above administrator
stated, she and her husband made conscious decisions about managing their roles. She
explains: “Because we married young, we had the advantage that we could plan our
careers to be compatible. Because I was not marketable as a Ph.D. in English, we wanted
to make sure he was very marketable. And he is. He could get a job in any city….he had
the background in family therapy and child development, so it made sense for him to
spend more time on the home front.”
Two administrators shared that they integrated their work life with their family
life. For instance, one administrator shared that her daughter had “grown up on campus.”
Because the family lived very close to the campus, her daughter never thought of work
and home as separate. She explains further: “She [her daughter] knows the whole faculty
and she knows all the students…when I come back [to campus] at night for concerts or
games or whatever, she comes with me. So, it’s not like I’m going away from her again.
And she’s been involved in a lot of things. My husband and I have taken student groups
to England, South America, South Africa, and she always goes with us.”
Another administrator who mentioned integrating her family and work lives stated
that she utilized students to provide in-house childcare for her children. She also realized
107
that her home life needed to be stable for her to perform her job well: “To me, if things
aren’t going well at home, things cannot go well here [at work] either. And so, that’s
first.”
An administrator who married later in life shared that she deliberately modified
her work responsibilities to accommodate the needs of her marriage. For instance, her
husband requested that she not take long trips related to work. She confided that it was
not a difficult decision: “You know, I’ve been overseas eight times. I think I can give
that up…I’ve had to curtail things like that, but that’s okay. I’ve gained other things.”
Another administrator, when asked how she managed work and family, replied:
“Sometimes it seems like you can’t do it.”
This question revealed that administrators with marriages and families have had
to be organized, multi- taskers, and accept nontraditional roles for themselves and their
husbands in order to succeed at both responsibilities.
Conflict in Personal and Professional Life.
Similar to the interview question above, this section explored what, if any,
conflict arose as each administrator juggled work and family. Of the nine who responded
to this question, four admitted that their number one conflict was scheduling – scheduling
enough family time, schedule demands at work, and having to choose between events and
responsibilities. Another shared that she wonders about the effect her working had on her
children: “I suppose one always wonders whether your children got the full measure of
support that they were looking for when you were busy working…I would think the issue
of having sufficient tension or support to your children in a sense of did they feel like
108
they were supported, did they have a mom, did they have a dad, was always in one’s
mind.”
Although she experienced conflict in her roles, one administrator shared that it
was not a “horrible, miserable struggle…just a daily consciousness of it, that [my] kids
need me and [my] work needs me and how do [I] make enough to go around?” One
administrator stated plainly that finding enough family time was always a struggle. She
places family time first and personal time second and admitted that it is often personal
time that gets sacrificed more than anything else.
The majority of the married administrators (N=9) confessed to some sort of
conflict in managing their careers and families, but not one said the outcome (having a
career and a family) was unworthy of the effort.
Critical Incidences
In this section of the interview, each administrator was asked what experiences
they felt particularly meaningful or strategic in helping her reach her current position and
if she would change anything about her career path.
Critical Incidences.
As to be expected, responses were highly varied and personal. However, several
patterns emerged. Experiences were categorized into the following areas: spiritual
encounter, experience outside higher education, encouragement from institution’s
president, influence of previous mentors, sense of calling, chairing a department, success
with accrediting organizations, and involvement with the CCCU Leadership Institute.
109
Spiritual encounters included those experiences when the administrator sensed a
direct calling from God and felt compelled to be obedient to that calling. For those who
stated experience outside higher education as a critical incidence, one was involved with
research and another in community service. Several administrators gave responses that
did not fit into the stated categories. For instance, one mentioned that having her
dissertation published was highly influential in her career path. Another shared that her
extended family’s experience with Christian ministry and Christian higher education
proved highly influential in her adult vocational choices. In the face of criticism, one
administrator shared that standing up for what she believed resulted in affirmation from
her institution’s president. Still another mentioned leaving lucrative careers so that she
and her husband could focus on their marriage. One administrator stated that the early
death of her mother and the family’s constant mobility forced her to be independent at an
early age and thus, contributed to where she is today. For the remaining categories, see
Table 35 below.
Table 35
Critical Incidences Affecting Career Paths (N=fequency)
Critical Incidences N
Spiritual Encounters 3Experience Outside Higher Education 2Encouragement from Institution’s President 2Influence of Previous Mentors 3Sense of Calling 2Chairing an Academic Department 3Success with Accrediting Organizations 3Involvement with the CCCU Leadership Institute 2
110
Career Path Changes.
In this section, each administrator was asked what she would change about her
career path if anything. Would she have chosen a different field? Taught more or less?
Been more involved with research? Responses were highly varied and personal. One
pattern emerged in the responses. Sixty-three percent of the administrators (N=10) stated
that they would not change anything about their career paths.
Of the remaining, three stated that they wish they had chosen a different field of
study and two wished they had taken their undergraduate studies more seriously. Other
items that administrators stated they would change about their career paths include: more
commitment to discipline, more publications, starting a family during graduate school,
obtaining experience at multiple Christian higher education institutions, and obtaining her
Ph.D. earlier in life.
Overall, the majority (N=10) responded that they would not change anything
about their career paths.
Role of Faith
This last section of the interview explored the role that faith played in each
administrator’s career path. How did she experience her faith as an administrator in a
Christian institution? Did she rely on her faith for decision making? If so, in what way?
To conclude this section, the administrators were asked what advice they would give for
women aspiring to administration in Christian colleges and universities.
Role of Faith.
Several of the administrators believe their faith in God translates into their calling
to Christian higher education. Four specifically stated that their positions in
111
administration were unique callings from God. One explained it as such: “On the one
hand, I guess I’d say that I felt sort of a sense of calling to work in Christian colleges,
because I believe so much in Christ-centered education.”
Four administrators described how they spent time with God on a daily basis –
through prayer and devotion. One described her faith practice as a dependency: “I don’t
know how people function without faith. I have a strong faith. I always have since I was
raised in a family with a Baptist preacher for a daddy. I depend on my faith. I believe in
prayer. I never try to do anything without praying about it first.” Another administrator
stated her reliance on faith in this way: “I begin everyday in a special prayer chair that I
have in a breakfast nook - a time of reflection, usually with prayer. And in the evening, I
have found tremendous meaning and direction by mentally formulating the questions to
which I have no answers, and I find that the creativity of the God of the universe is very
accessible to us when we lay the problem out, but don’t try to force the answer. Many,
many, many times in the morning the answer has come, the thought is there…I do believe
the Spirit of God dwells in us.”
Six of the administrators believe their positions are a part of God’s plan for their
lives. As a result, they look to Him through godly counsel and prayer for direction
regarding the work environment. One administrator admitted that early in her academic
studies, she gave little credit to her faith. However, as her career progressed, she began to
see God’s intervention in her life through her career path development. She states:
“When you look back and see how things went, you just know that…Christ was walking
right beside you and you know that there was a plan. I didn’t do a single thing. All I did
was put all my energy into God’s plan. It was God’s plan all along.” Another stated her
112
view of faith as being committed to God for His use and purposes. When asked what role
faith has played in her career path, another administrator explained it as such: “I think it’s
played a huge role. You know, the whole destiny thing – the way I ended up here
without ever applying to be here…I’m not just doing a job, but kind of fulfilling a
commission.”
Advice to Women.
The very last question of the interview asked the administrators what advice they
would give to a woman aspiring to Christian higher education administration. The
responses were categorized into the following nine areas: networking, prayer and
obedience, receiving a good education, taking risks, having varied experiences,
performing small tasks well, having mentors, thinking gender-less, and other. In the last
category, one administrator advised women to develop thick skins. Another suggested
waiting until one’s 40’s before marrying. One administrator advised women to obtain
experience as a faculty member before entering administration. As to direction, one
administrator stated: “Listen to the Lord…the Lord has a plan for our lives, truly, that is
unique to us. And so, the number one thing is to listen to what the Lord is asking you to
do, what the Lord is directing you to do, because it may be fairly standard, it may be
fairly traditional, or it may go against the grain of everybody that talks to you.”
For the remaining categories’ response frequencies, see Table 36 below.
113
Table 36
Advice to Women Aspiring to Administration (N=Frequency)
Advice to Women N
Networking 4Prayer and Obedience 3Receiving a Good Education 2Taking Risks 4Having Varied Experiences 6Performing Small Tasks Well 4Having Mentors 4Thinking Gender-less 4Other 4
114
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to explore and describe the career paths of women
administrators holding the title of Vice President of Academic Affairs, or its equivalent,
in member institutions of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU).
In describing the typical career path, eight categories were used to distinguish
contributing factors. These categories included demographics; family influences; social
influences in high school; college and graduate school; vocational influences; adult
family influences; critical incidences; and faith influences. In-depth, personal interviews
were used to gather data from each participating administrator. Several patterns emerged
relative to the data collected and are discussed in the following summary.
Summary
The findings are organized according to the research questions that guided the
study:
1.What demographics characterize women administrators serving in the CCCU?
The first four sections of the interview dealt specifically with demographics that
characterized each administrator. The majority of the participants had been at their
current institution for more than five years and in their current position for less than five.
Incidentally, four had been in their positions for less than one year. Age-wise, an equal
number of administrators were in their 40’s as were in their 50’s. The administrators held
the Ph.D. degree exclusively, with the majority majoring in nontraditional fields.
115
However, for undergraduate and master’s degrees, the majority of administrators received
their degrees in the arts, with the humanities most represented by the two degrees.
A majority of the administrators were married and had one or more children.
Most had married and had children in their 20’s. Of the married administrators, most had
husbands with graduate degrees with education as the most prominent field of study. The
other fields represented by administrators’ husbands included: ministry, social work,
corporate, and self-employment.
Administrators used a wide variety of adjectives to describe themselves. One-
fourth described themselves as hard-working, the most represented adjective. Energetic,
caring, serious, organized, friendly, outgoing, and people-orientated were adjectives also
used frequently by the administrators.
As children, administrators were raised by parents with a variety of educational
backgrounds. Almost half of the administrators’ mothers received high school diplomas
with the remaining receiving anywhere from some college credit to advanced degrees.
Administrators’ fathers were even more varied in their educational backgrounds. Several
did not finish high school while six received advanced degrees. As a result, almost half
of the administrators interviewed were first generation college students. Only one
administrator was an only child, with the remaining having one or more siblings.
Eighty-two percent of the administrators interviewed described their childhood as happy.
Although CCCU institutions are dispersed throughout the United States, the
largest number of administrators interviewed were serving at institutions in the south.
The northeast was the second most represented region. Ironically, almost half of the
administrators were raised in the south.
116
As children, the administrators reported a wide range of aspirations and interests.
Education and medicine were the most represented interests by the administrators,
although many expressed interests in musical activities, cheerleading, friends, horse back
riding, detective work, race car driving, dancing, and nursing.
Some of these interests followed the administrators into their high school years.
Roughly 63% continued their interest in musical activities by participating in the high
school band and/or choir. Another 63% expressed being involved with their church youth
group. Other activities included school sports and involvement in organizations in which
the administrator held a leadership position. Exactly half of the administrators expressed
having lots of friends during high school, with the remaining majority identifying 2-3
close friends.
Regarding their view of the feminine role while in high school, the majority
expressed an egalitarian view of male and female roles. None identified themselves as
feminist, but they also believed they had equal opportunities. Almost half of the women
admitted to having no conclusive opinion regarding male and female roles. Four
expressed that, during their adolescent years, they believed men should be “in charge.”
Academically, the administrators excelled. The majority expressed more
confidence in the humanities than the hard sciences or mathematics, although a close
majority expressed having no trouble in any subject. Parental expectations ranged from
expecting her to “do her best” and expecting her to excel. Surprisingly, five
administrators responded that they felt no academic expectation from their parents.
All the administrators interviewed completed terminal degrees with the majority
taking no breaks between degrees. Initially, the administrators chose their first institution
117
based on its geographical location or its reputation. In choosing to go to graduate school,
the majority responded that they chose to pursue graduate education because they were
pursuing a vocation. Again, they chose their graduate institutions for geographical
reasons: either it was close to their husband’s employment or close to their current
employment.
The administrators reported that they developed specific research interests while
in graduate school. The majority pursued research related to their field with the most
represented fields being education and the humanities. Several pursued research interests
related to their faith.
2. What was the first administrative position and latter career path in higher
education of CCCU women administrators?
Although many of the administrators aspired to teaching in higher education, an
overwhelming majority replied that they had never aspired to administration. Only four
reported an interest in administration during their early faculty years and one during
graduate school. Ninety-four percent of the administrators reported that they achieved
their current position while working in other higher education positions. Almost fifty
percent considered serving as department chair their first administrative position. Exactly
fifty percent fulfilled specific administrative roles other than department chair. These
positions included dean, program director, and coordinator positions, among others.
Only one administrator entered higher education as Vice President for Academic Affairs.
This individual had served almost 20 years in a higher education organization, other than
academia. Those who served as department chair began their careers as faculty members.
After serving as department chair, several administrators served as deans before assuming
118
their academic affairs post. Many of the administrators who served in specific
administrative roles also served as faculty. Once they entered administration, none
returned to full-time teaching. In summary, the typical administrator followed one of two
career paths upon completion of her terminal degree: 1) faculty ranking to department
chair to academic administration, or 2) administrative positions other than academic
affairs followed by academic administration.
The fact that many of the administrators did not aspire to administration correlates
with the fact that 50% of the administrators stated teaching as their career goal after
graduate school. The remaining stated that they had other career goals or that they did
not have a specific career goal at all.
3. What encouragement or discouragement from friends, family, and mentors did
each CCCU administrator experience?
As children, the administrators reported that they either received the most
encouragement from their mothers or a combination of their mother and father regarding
their aspirations and interests. One administrator received discouragement from a family
member who expressed concern over the administrator’s lack of marriage at the time of
her doctoral studies. During high school, the majority of the administrators identified one
or more individuals as mentors or serving as role models. The mentor’s role was
generally to encourage the future administrator in her academic endeavors. Many
believed their mentors instilled confidence in them. A few stated that their mentor
challenged them spiritually. Regardless of the emphasis, each administrator shared that
they felt championed by their mentor.
119
During graduate school, the majority experienced the impact of a mentor. In this
stage of their lives, the administrators overwhelmingly reported that the greatest impact
dealt with developing their professional abilities. An equal number of administrators had
either a male or female mentor. No one reported having any difficulty with her mentor,
whether professionally or personally. Many stated that their mentors continue to be a
part of their lives today.
The married administrators overwhelmingly reported that their spouses have
played a key role in their vocational success, offering encouragement, family support,
and the opportunity for mobility.
4. What critical incidences brought the administrator to her current position?
Critical incidences were defined in this study as those experiences the
administrator believed to be highly influential in achieving her current position. One
might expect the range of experiences to be highly varied among the administrators.
However, several consistent patterns emerged. Several administrators reported specific
spiritual experiences that they believe led them to their current position. Several
described a critical incidence as a “sense of calling.” An equal number reported that the
influence of mentors, chairing an academic department, and success with accrediting
organizations were especially important in their career path. Having a good relationship
with and receiving encouragement from the institution’s president proved critical in two
of the administrator’s career paths. In addition, two reported that their experiences
outside higher education, in research and corporate work, were important.
Of particular interest to this study is the impact the CCCU Leadership Institute
had on several of the administrators. Although only two identified their involvement
120
with the Institute as critical, four mentioned the Institute’s positive impact at other times
during the interview. Only six administrators reported being involved in the Institutes.
5. Does the administrator acknowledge her Christian faith as playing a role in
her career achievement?
An overwhelming majority reported that their faith played a key role in their
career development.
6. In what ways does the administrator acknowledge the role her faith has
played?
Though highly personal, administrators’ identified several faith influences that
contributed to her career development. Four reported that they believe their positions
were unique callings from God. Another four described how they spent time in prayer
and devotion on a daily basis, seeking solutions to vocational dilemmas. Six
administrators stated that they believe their positions in higher education administration
were “part of God’s plan” for their lives. In this sense, obedience to God became a key
factor. These administrators believed they were called to a specific task and that God
equipped them to complete it.
Discussion of the Findings
In an effort to identify and describe career paths of women administrators in a
qualitative manner, with many subjective questions, one might find emergent patterns
difficult to identify. However, many patterns did emerge. For instance, the women
interviewed in this study received terminal degrees largely in an academic discipline
(e.g., history, English) or a specified field of education (e.g., Curriculum and Instruction).
Secondly, the majority entered their academic administrative position through the faculty
121
ranks. Both patterns are consistent with established higher education career paths in
academic affairs found in the literature.
A second pattern that emerged was that the majority of administrators were
married and had children. As part of an evangelical community, it is often assumed that
married women would devote time and energy to children and home life. However, no
administrator reported taking an extended leave of absence once she entered her higher
education vocation in order to have and raise children. This pattern is consistent with
women administrators of secular institutions as identified in the literature. In juggling
their careers and families, many of the administrators reported attending school on a part-
time basis, teaching fewer classes, or designing her work schedule in order to
accommodate her family responsibilities.
Due to the unique controversy of women in leadership in evangelical institutions,
whether church or parachurch, one might expect little female involvement as Vice
President or above. This assumption was supported by the small number (18) of women
serving as academic officers at the over 90-member CCCU. This small percentage might
be attributed to the lack of encouragement women receive to pursue such positions. Or, it
might be attributed to the fact that many Christian women spend a great portion of their
adult lives raising children and are unable to maneuver the necessary academic ladder for
a top-level academic position. A further explanation might include the fact that many
evangelical organizations simply do not allow women in leadership roles. If there exists
a standard career path for academic leadership - terminal degree, faculty status, tenure,
publications, chair of a department, dean - many capable Christian women may not be
able to juggle the responsibilities of a highly demanding academic career and equally
122
demanding home life. However, half the administrators in this study conformed to this
standard career path while the remaining forged an alternative career path.
The administrators in this study reported only positive relationships and outcomes
with their mentors, whether male or female. Although this is a pattern for this study, it
does not necessarily correlate with the literature on the subject. Sexual harassment, lack
of female role models, and the “queen bee syndrome” often inhibit women from
receiving adequate mentoring. It is possible that the women in this study, by the
standards of conduct dictated by evangelical Christianity, were spared inappropriate or
awkward mentoring relationships.
An unusual pattern emerged among the married administrators in that the majority
reported being married to a spouse who had achieved success in his field. One might
expect, especially in evangelical marriages, that the husband pursues a vocation and
functions as the sole breadwinner, often requiring the devotion and support of a spouse at
home. However, another viewpoint within the evangelical tradition purports that the
husband’s leadership is not evidenced in his particular behavior (i.e., sole breadwinner)
but in his ability to lead his family so that each member reaches his or her potential, self-
sacrificing as a servant leader for the family. The spouses of administrators in this study
functioned in this latter viewpoint. They were not only successful in their careers, but
also often functioned in nontraditional roles in order to support their wives and children.
Many changed geographic locations and careers so that their wives could pursue
academic vocations.
An assumption in elementary and secondary education that is often realized in
undergraduate and graduate education is that boys and men excel in math and science,
123
while girls and women excel in the humanities and the arts. This assumption was
supported in this study to a certain degree. Most of the women felt most comfortable in
their English, literature, and language classes with a few struggling in math and science.
However, those that reported some difficulty in the latter responded that they simply had
to work a little harder to maintain their A’s.
The standards of membership in the CCCU require a commitment to integrate
faith and learning. It is expected that Christian faith would play a role in the career paths
of administrators serving in the CCCU. The experiences of the women in this study
support this expectation in very tangible ways. They do not take their positions as
academic officers lightly. It is, for the majority, a calling from God in which they expend
a great deal of time and energy, both in their academic responsibilities on a day-to-day
basis, as well as praying for and with faculty and sharing in the lives of those around
them.
Conclusions
The following tentative conclusions can be drawn based on the findings from this
study:
1. Few women hold CAO positions in CCCU institutions.
2. Female CAO’s serving in CCCU institutions achieve their positions as
academic officers in addition to marriage and motherhood.
3. Longevity in their academic position is not characteristic of women CAO’s in
CCCU institutions.
4. Parental support regarding education is important for aspiring women
administrators, yet they are likely to be first generation college students.
124
5. Women administrators seek terminal degrees in the humanities or education
prior to their appointments in higher education.
6. The majority achieve their CAO positions after a traditional academic career
progression of faculty member and department chair.
7. Women administrators benefit positively from the influence of a mentor or
role model, both in high school and later in college and graduate school.
Mentors serve primarily as encouragers and challengers in the administrator’s
academic endeavors.
8. Women administrators in CCCU institutions believe that giftedness, ability,
and calling supercede certain evangelical stereotypes as the basis for
achieving high level administrative positions.
9. Because they believe that their positions are unique callings from God,
women administrators do not aspire to administration.
10. Hard work, attention to detail, and the willingness to assume added
responsibilities are key characteristics that prime a woman for leadership roles
in academic administration.
11. Faith is highly influential in the career decisions of women administrators
serving in CAO positions in the CCCU.
Recommendations for Future Research
1. A study should be conducted identifying and describing the career paths of
women administrators at institutions, both secular and religious, outside the CCCU to
determine if similar or different patterns exist between the two.
125
2. A comparison study should be conducted that identifies and describes the
career paths of male CAOs serving in member institutions of the CCCU and compares
the findings to the career paths of female CAOs serving in the CCCU.
3. Further investigation should be pursued analyzing the impact of marriage and
family on women administrators serving in the CCCU.
4. A study should be undertaken to identify and describe if gender bias affects
promotion and leadership success among women administrators serving in the CCCU.
5. Follow-up studies should be conducted with the women in this study to
determine if longevity in their CAO position increases.
6. Replicate studies with the American Theological Schools and American
Association of Bible Schools should be conducted to compare women’s opportunities,
experiences, and roles with the findings of this study.
126
APPENDIX A
MEMBER INSTITUTIONS OF THE
COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
127
Member InstitutionsCouncil for Christian Colleges and Universities
Abilene Christian UniversityAnderson UniversityAsbury CollegeAzusa Pacific UniversityBartlesville Wesleyan CollegeBelhaven CollegeBethel College (Indiana)Bethel College (Kansas)Bethel College (Minnesota)Biola UniversityBluffton CollegeBryan CollegeCalifornia Baptist UniversityCalvin CollegeCampbellsville UniversityCampbell UniversityCedarville CollegeCollege of the OzarksColorado Christian UniversityCornerstone CollegeCovenant CollegeDallas Baptist UniversityDordt CollegeEastern CollegeEastern Mennonite UniversityEastern Nazarene CollegeEast Texas Baptist UniversityErskine CollegeEvangel UniversityFresno Pacific UnivesityGeneva CollegeGeorge Fox UniversityGordon CollegeGoshen CollegeGrace CollegeGrand Canyon UniversityGreenville CollegeHope International UniversityHoughton CollegeHuntington CollegeIndiana Wesleyan UniversityJohn Brown University
128
Judson CollegeKing CollegeThe King’s University CollegeLee UniversityLeTourneau UniversityMalone CollegeThe Master’s College and SeminaryMessiah CollegeMidAmerica Nazarene UniversityMilligan CollegeMontreat CollegeMount Vernon Nazarene CollegeNorth Park UniversityNorthwest Christian CollegeNorthwest CollegeNorthwestern College (Iowa)Northwestern College (Minnesota)Northwest Nazarene CollegeNyack CollegeOklahoma Baptist UniversityOklahoma Christian University of Science and ArtsOlivet Nazarene UniversityOral Roberts UniversityPalm Beach Atlantic CollegePoint Loma Nazarene UniversityRedeemer CollegeRoberts Wesleyan CollegeSeattle Pacific UniversitySimpson College and Graduate SchoolSouthern Nazarene UniversitySouthern Wesleyan UniversitySouthern Baptist UniversitySpring Arbor CollegeSterling CollegeTabor CollegeTaylor UniversityTrevecca Nazarene UniversityTrinity Christian CollegeTrinity International UniversityTrinity Western UniversityUnion UniversityUniversity of Sioux FallsVanguard University of Southern California (formerly Southern California College)Warner Pacific CollegeWarner Southern CollegeWestern Baptist College
129
Westmont CollegeWheaton CollegeWhitworth CollegeWilliams Baptist CollegeWilliam Tyndale College
130
APPENDIX B
INVITATION LETTER
131
NameTitleAddress
Dear Dr. ,
As one of 18 female chief academic officers in the Council for Christian Collegesand Universities, you represent one who has achieved an unusual position in Christianhigher education.
It is because of your achievement that we are inviting you to participate indissertation research through the Program in Higher Education at the University of NorthTexas. Findings from this study should provide more specific understanding of thedevelopment of female administrators in colleges and universities, and especially forwomen in Christian colleges and universities. Your experience and insight will beinvaluable to other women in the field as well as contribute to an area previouslyunexplored in the literature.
Your participation signifies your consent to be a part of this study; you will incurno repercussion if you choose to withdraw from the study. There are no known risks toyou as all information will be coded for confidentiality and accessible only to the primaryresearcher. In reporting the data, your identity and institution will not be published.
We know that the professional demands placed upon you are great. Therefore, weare asking that you give only 1 to 2 hours of your time for an in-depth, personal, phoneinterview scheduled at the most convenient time for you. To best represent you, wewould like to tape record the interview.
Won’t you thoughtfully consider joining us in this venture? We will contact youin two weeks to confirm your participation, answer any questions, and schedule aninterview time. Lastly, we respectively ask that you forward a vita or resume to validateyour career path. A self-addressed stamped envelope is included for your convenience.
Sincerely,
April L. MoretonResearch Analyst, Dallas Baptist University, 214-333-5275
Ron Newsom, Ph.D.Coordinator, Program in Higher Education, University of North Texas, 940-565-2722This project has been reviewed and approved by the UNT Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects(940-565-3940).
132
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW GUIDELINE
133
Interview GuidelineOpen-ended Questionnaire
Demographics
1. Name:2. Title:3. Name of current institution:4. Years in current institution:5. Years in current position:6. Age: 30-40______40-50______50-60______60-70_____70+7. What degrees do you hold and from where did you receive them?8. Undergraduate major:9. Graduate major (s):10. Marital Status: single________married________divorced_______widowed_______11. Number of children:12. Husband’s vocation:13. Husband’s education: high school_____bachelors_____masters_____doctorate14. What adjectives would you use to describe yourself?
Family Influences
15. Mother’s education: high school_____bachelors_____masters_____doctorate16. Father’s education: high school_____bachelors_____masters_____doctorate17. What is your place of birth?18. Where did you grow up?19. What were your early interests and aspirations?20. Did you have siblings? If so, were they older and/or younger than you?21. How would you describe your childhood?22. Who encouraged your aspirations the most – your mother or father?
Social Influences – High School
23. What were your activities outside the home?24. What were your parent’s expectations of you academically?25. In what subjects did you excel?26. Did you have any early mentors or role models?27. Specifically, how did he/she/they encourage and challenge you?28. Were you a loner or did you have a lot of friends?29. What were your feelings about the feminine role?
Social Influences – College and Graduate School
30. Why did you decide to go to college?31. How did you choose your first institution?32. What, if any, where your intellectual challenges?
134
33. In what subjects did you excel?34. What subjects gave you the most difficulty?35. Why did you decide to go to graduate school?36. How much time elapsed between your bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees?37. How did you choose your graduate school?38. Did you have mentors or role models during graduate school?39. If so, how did he/she/they influence you?40. While in graduate school, what specific research interests developed?41. At what point did you aspire to be an administrator?
Vocational Influences
42. What work experience did you gain during and immediately after graduate school?43. What specific competency did you develop?44. What was your career goal and strategy after graduate school?45. What was your first position in higher education administration?46. How did you achieve your current position?47. Did you pursue your current position or “fall into it”?
Adult Family Influences
48. If applicable, at what age did you get married? Have children?49. If applicable, how has marriage affected your professional career?50. If applicable, how has motherhood affected your professional career?51. If applicable, has your husband been successful in his professional endeavors?52. How have you managed family and professional career roles?53. Have you experienced any conflict between family and professional career?54. If so, describe.
Critical Incidences
55. Please identify three experiential factors that have been especially important inhelping you reach your current position.
56. If you could change anything about your career path, what would it be? Why?
Faith Influences
57. What role has faith played in your career decision-making?58. What advice would you have for a woman aspiring to Christian higher education
administration?
135
REFERENCES
Allen, L. H. (1984). On being a Vice President for Academic Affairs. Journal ofNAWDAC, 47 (4), 8-15.
American Council on Education (2000). Facts in brief: Women more likely thanmen to attend and complete college, NCES study shows. Available:http://www.acenet.edu/hena/facts_in_brief/2000/00_05_15_fib.html [2000, June 6].
American Council on Education (2000). More women serve as collegepresidents, ACE survey shows. Available:http://www.acenet.edu/hena/issues/2000/09_11_00/women.html [2000, September 11].
Barrax, J.D. (1985). A comparative career profile of female and male universityadministrators. Journal of NAWDAC, 48 (2), 26-31.
Bird, G.W. (1984). Family and career characteristics of women and men collegeand university administrators. Journal of NAWDAC, 47 (4), 21-28.
Bower, F.L. (1993). Women and mentoring in higher education administration.In Mitchell, P.T. (Ed.), Cracking the Wall (89-98). Washington: The College andUniversity Personnel Association.
Brown, G. & Burt, E. (1990). What motivates women to pursue administrativepositions? Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 56 (2), 45-52.
Cejda, B.D., Bush, W.B., Jr. & K. L. Rewey. (In Press). Profiling the chiefAcademic officers of Christian colleges and universities: A comparative study. ChristianHigher Education: A Journal of Applied Research and Practice.
Diaz-Bolet, E.L. (1999). A study of selected factors related to mentoring womenadministrators in Christian colleges and Universities (DIA, 60, No. 04A). Fort Worth:Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Digest of Education Statistics (1999). Postsecondary Education. Available:http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/digest99/d99t228.html [2000, July 6].
136
Dublon, F.J. (1983). Women doctoral students in higher educationadministration: Life-style aspirations and multiple role commitments. Journal ofNAWDAC 47 (1), 20-24.
Etaugh, C. (1984). Women faculty and administrators in higher education:Changes in their status since 1972. Journal of NAWDAC, 48 (1), 21-25.
Ezrati, J.B. (1983). Personnel policies in higher education: A covert means of sexdiscrimination? Educational Administration Quarterly, 19 (4), 105-119.
Fitzgerald, L.F. & Crites, J.O. (1980). Toward a career psychology of women:what do we know? What do we need to know? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27(1), 44-62.
Garlett, M.W. (1997). Waiting in the Wings: Women of God in the EvangelicalCommunity (DAI, 58, No. 03A). Azusa: Azusa Pacific University, the ClaremontSchool.
Gaustad, E.S. (1990). A Religious History of America. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
Gilligan, Carol (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of self andmorality. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 481-517.
Gold, A. (1996). (Women and) Educational Management. Paper presented at themeeting of the Gender Equality for 2000 and Beyond, Dublin, Ireland.
Harvey, W.B. & Stiff, L.V. (1985). Examining opportunities for mobility forprofessional staff in state universities. Innovative Higher Education, 10, 14-22.
Hawk, P.A. (1995, September). Lessons from the top: 15 women who have madeit share their stories. A multiple case study. Paper presented at the meeting for theAnnual Women in Leadership, Lincoln, NE.
Hersi, D.T. (1993). Factors contributing to job satisfaction for women in highereducation administration. CUPA Journal, 44 (2), 29-35.
Hopson, C. (1995). Mentoring new administrators. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Southern States Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
Ironside, E.M. (1983). Women as administrators in higher education: qualitativedata for value questions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for theStudy of Higher Education, Washington, D.C.
137
Ironside, E.M. (1981). Uncommon women/common themes: Career paths ofupper level women administrators in higher education institutions. Paper presented at thejoint conference of the Southern Association for Institutional Research, Charlotte, NC.
Jones, S.W. (1987). Women Administrators: The myths don’t match the facts.CUPA Journal, 38 (1), 1-4.
Kaplan, S. & Tinsley, A. (1989). Women in administration of higher education.Academe, 75 (1), 18-22.
Knopp, L. (1995). Women in higher education today. Research Briefs, 6 (5), 1-11.
Kuyper, L.A. (1987). Career development of women in the administration ofhigher education: Contributing factors. Journal of NAWDAC, 3-7.
Lafontaine, E. & McKenzie, B.J. (1985). Being out on the inside in highereducation administration: Women’s responses to role and status incongruity. Journal ofNAWDAC, 48 (2), 19-25.
LeCompte, M. & Schensul, J.L. (1999). Designing & Conducting EthnographicResearch. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Lumsden, D.B., Plotts, J.G., Wells, C.R., & Newsom, R.W. (2000). Profiling thepresidents of Christian colleges and universities: A comparative study. Journal ofResearch on Christian Education, 9, 61-74.
MaCaul, S. & Dunlap, W.P. (1988). Women in education: Pathways toadvancement. Journal of Education, 109, 231-238.
Mann, J. & Smith, C. (1990). Prewiring for academic failure: Barriers toadvancement to administrative positions in higher education. CUPA Journal, 41 (1), 25-30.
Marshall, M.R. & Jones, C.H. (1990). Childbearing sequence and the careerdevelopment of women administrators in higher education. Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 31, 531-37.
Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: an interactive approach.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
138
Moore, K.M. (1983). Leaders in transition: A national study of higher educationadministrators. Report no. 83-711. Pennsylvania: Center for the Study of Highereducation, the Pennsylvania State University.
Murrell, P.H. & Donohue, W.G. (1982). The life cycles and career stages ofsenior-level administrative women in higher education. (Report No. NIE-G-79-0085).Memphis, TN: Memphis State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 219-018).
National Center for Educational Statistics (2000). Trends in Educational Equityof Girls and Women. NCES 2000-030. Available: http://www.nces.gov.
North, J.D. (1991). Strangers in a strange land: Women in higher educationadministration. Initiatives, 54 (2), 43-53.
Ost, D.H. & Twale, D.J. (1989). Appointments of administrators in highereducation: Reflections of administrative and organizational structures. Initiatives, 52 (2),23-29.
Phillips, S.D. & Johnston, S.L. (1985). Attitudes toward work roles for women.Journal of College Student Personnel, July, 334-338.
Powney, J. (1997). On becoming and being a manager in higher education. InEggins, H.(Ed.), Women as Leaders and Managers in Higher Education (pp. 49-62).Buckingham, MK: SRHE and Open University Press.
Roey, S. & Skinner, R.R. (2000). Fall Staff in postsecondary institutions, 1997.Education Statistics Quarterly. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/qrtlyspring/5post/q5-6.html
[2000, May 30].
Sagaria, M.D. (1988). Administrative mobility and gender. Journal of HigherEducation, 59 (3), 305-26.
Scanlon, K.C. (1997). Mentoring women administrators: breaking through theglass ceiling. Initiatives, 58 (2), 39-59.
Schaller, L., ed. (1982). Women as Pastors. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Schmitt, D.M. (1994). Integrating new theory & practice to prepare women forroles in educational administration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, IL.
Schneider, A. (2000). U. of Oregon settles lawsuit over maternity leave. TheChronicle of Higher Education, July 21, 1-2.
139
Schneider, A. (2000). Faculty Union at California State U. charges that merit-paysystem favors men. The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 21, 1-3.
Sederberg, N. & Mueller, C. (1992). Career paths of women administrators: Theintersection of work and family. Paper presented at the annual conference of the NationalCouncil on Family Relations, Orlando, FL.
Slimmer, V.M. (1984, November). Advancement factors of women inadministration: Patterns and perspectives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Stonewater, B.B. (1987). Career traits, decision style, and Gilligan: Implicationsfor counseling women. Journal of NAWDAC, 50 (2), 17-26.
Street, S. & Kimmel, E. (1999). Gender role preferences and perceptions ofuniversity administrators. NASPA Journal, 36 (3), 222-239.
Swoboda, M.J. & Millar, S.B. (1986). Networking-mentoring: Career strategy ofwomen in academic administration. Journal of NAWDAC, 50 (1), 8-13.
Tetreault, M.K.T. (1986). The journey form male-defined to gender balancededucation. Theory into Practice, 25 (4), 227-234.
Tinsley, A. (1985). Upward mobility for women administrators. Journal ofNAWDAC, 49 (1), 3-11.
Twale, D.J. (1992, March). An analysis of higher education administrativeappointments: A focus on women from 1986-1991. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Hilton Head, SC.
Twombly, S. (1986, April). Theoretical approaches to the study of careermobility: Applications to administrative career mobility in colleges and universities.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco, CA.
Warner, R. & Defleur, L.B. (1993). Career paths of women in higher educationadministration. In Mitchell, P.T. (Ed.), Cracking the Wall (1-18). Washington: TheCollege and University Personnel Association.
Warner, R., Brazzell, J., Allen, R., Bostick, S., & Marin, P. (1988). Career pathsin higher education administration. Paper presented by the Oakland University Chapterof the American Council on Education/National Identification Program Career PathsResearch Committee.
140
Wilson, J. (1990). Moving in and moving up: Women in higher education in the1990’s. In New Directions for Higher Education (pp. 67-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Women in Higher Education (2000). Women as CEOs of higher educationschools/campuses, 1995. Available: http://www.wihe.com/stats2.htm [2000, July 7].
Women in Higher Education (1998). Gender differences in 1998-1999Administrative Salaries. Available: http://www.wihe.com/stats98.htm [2000, July 7].
Woo, L.C. (1985). Women administrators: Profiles of success. Phi DeltaKappan, 285-288.
Wright, C.A. & Wright, S.D. (1987). The role of mentors in the careerdevelopment of young professionals. Family Relations, 36 (2), 204-208.
Yeakey, C.C., Johnston, G.S., & Adkison, J.A. (1986). In pursuit of equity: Areview of research on minorities in educational administration. EducationalAdministrative Quarterly, 22 (3), 110-149.